The file's text, extracted by GovTribe without its formatting.
MDOC Inmate Network, Applications & Services RFS Request for Solution No. 171-250000002079
State Answers to Vendor Questions: ROUND 1 Document 2 of 3
NOTE: The State will be publishing revised requirements documents to address revisions to the requirements and formatting fixes.
| Q# |
| Document and Section |
| Page# / Requirement# |
| Bidder Question |
| State Answer |
| 198 |
| Device Breakdown |
| N//A |
| During the online Prebid meeting, it was discussed that the RFS did not provide the existing or desired quantities of devices (inmate telephones, kiosk, and handheld devices) for the inmate services, and that it was up to the bidder to determine this based on the solution proposed. |
Can we be provided the following information for each of the 26 facilities, to allow us to engineer the proper quantities of devices that will be needed for our solution (see below)?
A)-List of Site Names, Locations, and Security Level B)-Total Population Capacity C)-ADP per housing unit/pod D)-Breakdown on Tiered Release of Population per Housing Units/Pod (quantity and times) E)-Breakdown on Security and Behavioral Levels for the Population per Housing Units/Pod (SHU, SEG, GP, ETC.)
F)- Breakdown on Housing Units/Pod that would require fixed Kiosk and wall-mounted ITS units, versus handheld devices G) - Breakdown on Housing Units/Pod that would allow handheld inmate devices only H) - Breakdown on the Quantity of outdoor yard areas and max capacity of inmates per yard area I) - Breakdown on the quantity of educational classrooms and the student capacity per facility J) - Breakdown on required visitation booths for face-to-face visits that require telephones with recording and without recording per facility K)- Quantity of Private VV locations per facility and per housing/Pod unit A) This information is posted on the MDOC’s website. Legislative Reports. These reports are listed as “Offender Population – Month".
B) This information is posted on the MDOC’s website. Legislative Reports. These reports are listed as “Offender Population – Month".
C) Please define ADP and resubmit for round 2 Q&A.
D) There is no current breakdown of this information.
E) This information is posted on the MDOC’s website. Legislative Reports. These reports are listed as “Offender Population – Month".
F) Please see response to question #41.
G) There is no current breakdown of this information.
H) Please see question #127.
I) MDOC has between 4 and 12 classrooms at every facility, with the majority having 6-8. Average classroom occupancy is 20 simultaneous students.
J) Non-Contact and visitation services will not need phone services between inmate and on-site visitor. This is not part of the current bid request.
K) The total number of video visitation phones for MDOC is 424. MDOC does not have a breakdown by housing unit, but the following is a breakdown by facility:
| Alger | 15 |
| Baraga | 10 |
| Bellamy | 12 |
| Brooks | 8 |
| Carson City | 21 |
| Central Mich | 16 |
| Chippewa | 17 |
| Cooper | 22 |
| Cotton | 23 |
| Egeler | 16 |
| Gus Harrison | 15 |
| Parnall | 24 |
| Lakeland | 18 |
| Handlon | 6 |
| Ionia | 18 |
| Kinross | 10 |
| Macomb | 7 |
| Marquette | 12 |
| Muskegon | 6 |
| Newberry | 13 |
| Oaks | 7 |
| Saginaw | 12 |
| St. Louis | 15 |
| Thumb | 18 |
| Women's Huron | 64 |
| Woodland | 19 |
| 199 |
| Schedule A – SOW, Section 3 |
| 81 |
| The SOM says it’s “seeking a Contractor Hosted or SaaS software Solution” … can the contractor utilize a third-party SaaS solution, that isn’t developed or hosted by the contractor? Yet the contractor has experience in the solutions and would employ it for SOM purposes. |
| Bidders may propose third-party solutions. |
| 200 |
| Schedule A – SOW, Section 3, Scope |
| 83 |
| Is the Prisoner Application services provided by MDOC and it is the responsibility of the contractor to simply support the use of applications from an end user perspective, but not support the application itself? |
| Can the bidder please clarify this question and re-submit for Bidder Q&A Round 2. |
| 201 |
| Schedule A – SOW, Section 3, Objectives, 1stthru 3rd bullets |
| 83 |
| What is the expected level of support that will be approved by the MDOC? |
| Please review Schedule D “Service Level Agreements”. Contractors should propose support for services based on best practices and industry standards |
| 202 |
| Schedule A – SOW, Section 3, Objectives, Services Table |
| 84 |
| Does the MDOC define “Services” around these applications as support services? Meaning the contractor will need to know how to interact with these systems and do basic troubleshooting, but if there is a system problem the contractor will escalate to the application services provider, either internally at MDOC or a third-party? |
| MDOC would require all responsible parties to work with MDOC to work on a troubleshooting plan. |
| 203 |
| Schedule A – SOW, Section 3, Objectives, Bidder Response Table |
| 84-86 |
| If a bidder chooses not to respond to some of the systems or services identified in the table, does that disqualify the bidder from providing services for other system and services? In other words, does the MDOC prefer one vendor for all systems and services? |
| Bidders are permitted to bid on some or all services listed but will only be awarded services that it bids upon. The State will decide whether to award one contract or multiple as part of its overall best value analysis. Please also note that bidders should provide an answer to every bidder response box throughout the entire RFS relating your responses specifically to the services you are bidding on. Leaving question(s) unanswered may be deemed non-responsive and result in loss of points or disqualification. |
| 204 |
| n/a |
| n/a |
| If services are currently performed by third parties, does MDOC intend to replace those third-party services with a single or multiple new awardees? |
| The State will make such decisions as part of its overall best value analysis. |
| 205 |
| Schedule A, Attachment 1 - SLA, Real-Time Monitoring |
| NSM 28.0 |
| Is the real-time monitoring portal customizable? Will the State have full access to configure dashboards, thresholds, and alerts? |
| The State is expecting the bidder to provide a solution for a real-time monitoring tool. Our desire is for it to be customizable. |
| 206 |
| Schedule A, Attachment 1 - Audit Logs |
| NSM 24.0 |
| Please confirm if audit logs are required for all user and administrator activity, or only for access-related events. |
| MDOC would require all users, administrators and access related events to be logged. |
| 207 |
| Schedule A, Attachment 1 - MiSAP / ATO |
| NSM 12.0 |
| Does the MiSAP process require third-party attestation? If so, which frameworks (e.g., NIST 800-53, ISO 27001) must be followed? |
| The State requires SOC 2 for any non-state hosted environment. The State adheres to NIST 800-53 Rev 5 or greater and CJIS when appropriate. See RF Schedule E for further information. |
| 208 |
| Schedule A, Attachment 1 - Pen Testing |
| NSM 15.0 |
| Can the State clarify if pen tests must be conducted in a live environment, or is a representative test/dev environment sufficient? |
| Pen test must be conducted in a live environment. |
| NSM 16.0 |
| Can the State clarify if pen tests must be conducted in a live environment, or is a representative test/dev environment sufficient? |
| Pen test must be conducted in a live environment. |
| 210 |
| Schedule A, Attachment 1 - Device Management |
| DM 3 |
| What is the expectation around remote update capabilities for MDM-enrolled devices, particularly in low-bandwidth facility environments? |
| The expectation is that the MDM system would update all the devices as expected and The State would work with the bidder to resolve any low bandwidth issues. |
| 211 |
| Schedule A, Attachment 1 - Device Management |
| 15 |
| Does the State require logical separation of users and devices by facility or security level within the MDM platform? Are there expectations for delegated administration or scoped access for MDOC staff? |
| Yes, the state requires logical separation of users by facility and security level. MDOC is looking for the bidder to provide pricing options for fully vendor managed solution and one containing delegated administration. |
| 212 |
| RFS - Section 9.2, App Scanning |
| 184 |
| What static code analysis (SAST) tools are approved by the State? Will the Contractor be required to provide licenses, or will tools be made available by the State? |
| The state uses Tenable and BlackDuck. The bidder will not be required to provide Licenses for state tools. |
| 213 |
| GENERAL |
| n/a |
| What is the anticipated volume of service tickets (by category, e.g., incidents, service requests, change requests) that Bidder should plan to handle monthly? |
| MDOC would prefer the bidder to provide pricing for including offenders submitting service tickets and configuration related to restrictions of the number of tickets that can be submitted per offender. |
| 214 |
| Disaster Recovery Plan |
| 188 |
| Will Bidder be granted direct access to MDOC’s ServiceNow instance for incident management, or is integration with our own platform expected? Could you elaborate on the key service level metrics that will be tracked (e.g., response time, resolution time, system uptime)? |
| MDOC does not have an incident management system available for use. See Schedule D, Service Level Agreement (SLA). |
| 215 |
| Section 15 - Transition Responsibilities |
| 108 |
| Will Bidder be expected to support parallel operations with an outgoing provider or legacy systems during the transition phase? |
| Yes, this may be required depending on the service as the State can't have gaps in specific services like prisoner phone calls. |
| 216 |
| GENERAL |
| n/a |
| How is the user satisfaction be evaluated throughout the project lifecycle and once services are fully operational? |
| MDOC doesn’t currently perform this now. The State is open to proposed services user satisfaction at no cost to the State. |
| 217 |
| GENERAL |
| n/a |
| Are there any mechanisms in place such as feedback surveys or usage analytics that Bidder is expected to support or implement to measure the effectiveness of inmate-facing services? |
| This would be a beneficial tool for both Contractors and the State. Please provide options for this kind of analytics in your bid response for the State’s review. |
| 218 |
| GENERAL |
| n/a |
| Will MDOC provide specific metrics or KPIs tied to user adoption and service utilization that Bidder should align with? |
| MDOC is looking for the bidder to make recommendations regarding an adoption plan and a service utilization plan that results in greater than 80% for each. |
| 219 |
| Section D, Attachment 2 |
| n/a |
| What are the expectations for support staffing during the initial rollout, ongoing operations, and long-term support phases? |
| The State expects that the bidder provide the needed staff to support the initial rollout, ongoing opertions and long term support. |
| 220 |
| GENERAL |
| n/a |
| What is the approach for managing change across MDOC facilities, particularly as it relates to staff training and inmate education on new systems? |
| The State is open to suggestions on how to approach change across MDOC facilities. Please provide options for approaches to these issues in your bid response for MDOC review. |
| 221 |
| Sch A, Att 1: BUSINESS SPECIFICATIONS WORKSHEET NSM 1.0, 2.0 |
| 5 |
| How are current DHCP, DNS, Proxy infrastructure serviced today? Will these need to be rearchitected, or will the leverage of existing infrastructure be required? |
| These are the services that The State is asking the bidder to provide for MDOC. |
| 222 |
| Sch A, Att 1: BUSINESS SPECIFICATIONS WORKSHEET NSM 3.0 |
| 6 |
| Please provide a list of current cybersecurity and network monitoring services in place within MDOC facilities (e.g., SIEM, vulnerability management, threat detection, incident response platforms)? |
| These are the services that The State is asking the bidder to provide for MDOC. |
| 223 |
| Sch A, Att 1: BUSINESS SPECIFICATIONS WORKSHEET NSM 4.0 |
| 6 |
| Please provide a link to or copy of the SOM reporting and incident response procedures as well as any other required reporting and IR procedures. |
| 1340.00.090.01 INCIDENT RESPONSE STANDARD |
The State can provide that information with a signed NDA.
| 224 |
| Sch A, Att 1: BUSINESS SPECIFICATIONS WORKSHEET NSM 5.0 |
| 6 |
| What is the current standard for the SOM managed firewall for each MDOC location? Are there any imminent changes to that configuration? |
| The current standard is that all facilities have a Checkpoint Firewall. None, that State is aware of at this point in the process. |
| 225 |
| Sch A, Att 1: BUSINESS SPECIFICATIONS WORKSHEET NSM 7.0 |
| 7 |
| What current MDM solution(s) are in place for NSM 7.0 and DM requirements? What state issued devices will this cover? Are there standards around os (IOS vs Android, IOS vs Windows, etc |
| The State is looking for a Vendor to provide this as part of the solution. |
| 226 |
| Sch A, Att 1: BUSINESS SPECIFICATIONS WORKSHEET NSM 9.0 |
| 8 |
| what is the current electronic gateway and reporting mechanism for Data/Metrics? |
| The State is looking for a Vendor to provide this as part of the solution. |
| 227 |
| Sch A, Att 1: BUSINESS SPECIFICATIONS WORKSHEET NSM 9.0 |
| 8 |
| Is there an incumbent Managed Security Services Provider (MSSP) currently monitoring MDOC's facility networks or inmate-facing networks? If so, please identify the vendor(s) and scope of services. |
| No, this is a new network and service requirement. MDOC is looking for a bid on these services. |
| 228 |
| Sch A, Att 1: BUSINESS SPECIFICATIONS WORKSHEET NSM 9.0, 10 |
| 8 |
| Does MDOC currently utilize a centralized Security Operations Center (SOC) for facility-related networks and devices, or are monitoring responsibilities handled individually at each location? |
| No, MDOC does not currently utilize a centralized SOC solution and is looking for a bid for this type of service. Contractors must provide in their bid response all options for the State’s consideration for SOC solutions. |
| 229 |
| Sch A, Att 1: BUSINESS SPECIFICATIONS WORKSHEET NSM 14.0 |
| 9 |
| Is the vendor expected to integrate new SIEM or monitoring tools into existing State monitoring environments (e.g., Michigan Cybersecurity Operations Center), or manage security operations independently within the awarded solution? What current SIEM technologies are in place/will remain in place |
| Yes, the vendor would be expected to provide a full featured environment that would allow for engagement with MiSOC and the MDOC as needed to support the incident response process. |
| 230 |
| Sch A, Att 1: BUSINESS SPECIFICATIONS WORKSHEET NSM 18.0 |
| 10 |
| Please provide a detailed inventory of major infrastructure components currently deployed at MDOC facilities, including (but not limited to) the following items. What will MDOC keep in place, what will be replaced? Are there any specific concerns about any of the items in place / technology MDOC will absolutely not entertain? |
| The State is unable to publish the details regarding infrastructure components currently deployed at MDOC facilities for security reasons. Bidders should assume infrastructure will enable compliance with this requirement |
| 231 |
| Sch A, Att 1: BUSINESS SPECIFICATIONS WORKSHEET NSM 18.0 |
| 10 |
| a. switching and routing hardware vendors (e.g., Cisco, Juniper, HPE) |
| Cisco |
| 232 |
| Sch A, Att 1: BUSINESS SPECIFICATIONS WORKSHEET NSM 18.0 |
| 10 |
| b. wireless access point vendors |
| Cisco |
| 233 |
| Sch A, Att 1: BUSINESS SPECIFICATIONS WORKSHEET NSM 18.0 |
| 10 |
| c. firewall technologies protecting facility networks, and cabling and structured wiring (e.g., Cat5e, Cat6, fiber)? |
| Please see response to question 224. |
| 234 |
| Sch A, Att 1: BUSINESS SPECIFICATIONS WORKSHEET NSM 18.0 |
| 10 |
| d. Current WAF technology (from NSM 21.0) |
| Current WAF technology is F5 BIG IP. |
| 235 |
| Sch A, Att 1: BUSINESS SPECIFICATIONS WORKSHEET NSM 18.0 |
| 10 |
| e. Current IPS/Network Activity monitoring technologies (NSM 14.0 &NSM 22.0) in place? |
| There are currently none in place. MDOC is looking for a proposed solution for these services. |
| 236 |
| Sch A, Att 1: BUSINESS SPECIFICATIONS WORKSHEET NSM 18.0 |
| 10 |
| f. From NSM 23.0 – what current VPN is in use? |
| There are currently none in place. MDOC is looking for a proposed solution for these services. |
| 237 |
| Sch A, Att 1: BUSINESS SPECIFICATIONS WORKSHEET NSM 18.0 |
| 10 |
| g. NSM 26.0 – What current keylogging is in place? |
| There are currently none in place. MDOC is looking for a proposed solution for these services. |
| 238 |
| Sch A, Att 1: BUSINESS SPECIFICATIONS WORKSHEET NSM 18.0 |
| 10 |
| h. Any current NAC or ZTNA tech in place? Is there a desired standard? |
| There are currently none in place. MDOC is looking for a proposed solution for these services. |
| 239 |
| Sch A, Att 1: BUSINESS SPECIFICATIONS WORKSHEET NSM 18.0 |
| 10 |
| i. What is the current IAM solution in place? Is there a current State or MDOC standard? |
| The CETN network currently uses GCP- IAM, but the State is not requiring that be used. MDOC is looking for a proposed solution for these services. |
| 240 |
| Sch A, Att 1: BUSINESS SPECIFICATIONS WORKSHEET NSM 18.0 |
| 10 |
| j. What is used currently for MFA? |
| There are currently none in place. MDOC is looking for a proposed solution for these services. |
| 241 |
| Sch A, Att 1: BUSINESS SPECIFICATIONS WORKSHEET NSM 18.0 |
| 10 |
| k. What current NMM technology is being used? |
| There are currently none in place. MDOC is looking for a proposed solution for these services. |
| 242 |
| Sch A, Att 1: BUSINESS SPECIFICATIONS WORKSHEET ISP Requirements |
| 33 |
| Are facility-level Internet Service Providers (ISPs) currently standardized across MDOC facilities, or does each location procure connectivity independently? |
| The state expects the bidder to provide the ISP services to all of DOC facilities. The bidder can use multiple ISP services to fulfill this requirement. |
| 243 |
| Sch A, Att 1: BUSINESS SPECIFICATIONS WORKSHEET NSM 29.0 |
| 14 |
| Is there an existing internal VLAN structure separating inmate, staff, administrative, and security systems, or will this segmentation need to be fully built out by the awarded vendor? |
| Yes a VLAN structure is currently in place and provided by the State. The bidder will have to build aspects of network management as described above in line items 235-240. |
| 244 |
| SCHEDULE A, ATTACHMENT 2: PRISONER SERVICES BUSINESS SPECIFICATIONS WORKSHEET GEN 17-19 |
| 7 & 8 |
| Please provide a list of third-party vendors or platforms (with applicable versions/architecture specs that vendors must plan to integrate with for this project, including (but not limited to): existing inmate phone system providers, video visitation systems, grievance, requests, or medical request management systems, law library systems, offender management systems (OMS) or booking platforms? |
| The only required integrations with current systems would be: |
· COMS (OMS) provided by Advanced Technology Group
· Electronic Law Library provided by Relx/LexisNexis
· Prisoner commissary provided by KEEFE
Please see RFS Schedule A (Statement of Work) Section 11-Integrations for further information.
| 245 |
| SCHEDULE A, ATTACHMENT 2: PRISONER SERVICES BUSINESS SPECIFICATIONS WORKSHEET GEN 15 & 16 |
| 7 |
| Please provide current SLAs (Gen 15.0) and MDOC-Approved Maintenance Windows (Gen 16.0) |
| See Schedule D (Service Level Agreement). |
| 246 |
| SCHEDULE A, ATTACHMENT 2: PRISONER SERVICES BUSINESS SPECIFICATIONS WORKSHEET GEN 17-19 |
| 7 & 8 |
| For each existing third-party platform requiring integration, please specify whether API access, batch export/import, or middleware-based integration is expected? |
| Please see Schedule A section 11-Integration. Contractors are encouraged to include additional interfaces that bring value to the State. FTS is a File Transfer Service. The State does not have a preference related to the integration process. This may depend on what solution is appropriate for the integration and/or what both entities approve. |
| 247 |
| SCHEDULE A, ATTACHMENT 2: PRISONER SERVICES BUSINESS SPECIFICATIONS WORKSHEET GEN 17-19 |
| 7 |
| Are any current services operated under State contracts that will remain in place after this procurement, requiring interoperability instead of replacement? Please identify and explain. |
| Please see answer to question 244. |
| 248 |
| SCHEDULE A, ATTACHMENT 2: PRISONER SERVICES BUSINESS SPECIFICATIONS WORKSHEET GEN 17-19 |
| 7 |
| Are vendors expected to propose new replacement solutions for inmate phone systems, video visitation, and messaging, or to integrate with and enhance existing systems where feasible? |
| This RFS includes requests or vendors to bid solutions to replace current solutions for inmate phones, video visitation, and messaging. |
| 249 |
| Sch A, Att 1: BUSINESS SPECIFICATIONS WORKSHEET NSM 1.0, 2.0; Sch A, Att 1: BUSINESS SPECIFICATIONS WORKSHEET ISP Requirements ISP 1.0 |
| 5 & 33 |
| For network infrastructure, is the vendor expected to fully replace switching, routing, wireless, and Internet access technologies at each site, or is partial refresh (augmenting or extending) desired? |
| The State is looking for a solution for these services. The State is providing the Wireless Access Points and will have an inmate SSID that traffic will be routed through the SOM managed firewall. The Contractor is expected to provide the rest of the network components (Switches and routers) where the prisoner applications will live on. Please see attached “Route Path” document published with these round 1 Q&A responses. |
| 250 |
| Sch A, Att 1: BUSINESS SPECIFICATIONS WORKSHEET Sch A, Att 1: BUSINESS SPECIFICATIONS WORKSHEET ISP Requirements |
| Please specify which services or components are mandatory for replacement, which are mandatory to keep and integrate and which are open for optional enhancement or integration? |
| MDOC is looking for a solution for ISP services. |
| 251 |
| Sch A, Att 1: BUSINESS SPECIFICATIONS WORKSHEET Sch A, Att 1: BUSINESS SPECIFICATIONS WORKSHEET ISP Requirements |
| Please clarify whether security accreditation must be achieved for new inmate-facing systems separately from the existing facility/staff networks? |
| Yes, it will be required for new inmate-facing systems. |
| 252 |
| Sch A, Att 1: BUSINESS SPECIFICATIONS WORKSHEET NSM 12.0 |
| 9 |
| Does the awarded vendor bear responsibility for achieving MiSAP security accreditation independently, or will certification be coordinated jointly with State DTMB cybersecurity teams? Please provide information on costs and procedures for the MiSAP and ATO requirements. |
| Yes, the bidder will have to engage in the MiSAP process and will be coordinated by MDOC. The State does not know cost until the awarded services are defined. |
| 253 |
| Sch A, Att 1: BUSINESS SPECIFICATIONS WORKSHEET NSM 15.0 |
| 10 |
| At what intervals are vendors expected to submit independent security architecture reviews (e.g., external penetration tests, code audits) at go-live or annually / periodically during the contract? What are any requirements outside of what is listed in NSM-15.0? |
| The bidder is required to provide this as a pre-requisite for “go live” and annually. In addition, the State may require this after a significant change. Recommendations related to the scope of penetration testing to be provided by Contractors in their bid responses. |
| 254 |
| Sch A, Att 1: BUSINESS SPECIFICATIONS WORKSHEET Facility Locations |
| 43 to 46 |
| Are there any additional ways that the current facilities are segmented into size, level of security, or additional unique identifiers? |
| MDOC facilities are not currently segmented by size or security levels. Most MDOC facilities have multiple levels of security in one facility. The only way facilities are currently segmented is by North and South Regions. Some MDOC facilities are also designated for specific or special programing for prisoners. Please find additional facility information on the following links: |
1) Prisons
2) Correctional Facilities Administration (CFA)
| 255 |
| SCHEDULE A, ATTACHMENT 2: PRISONER SERVICES BUSINESS SPECIFICATIONS WORKSHEET GEN 15 to 18 |
| 7 |
| Please clarify whether the awarded solution must fully replace all existing inmate communication services, or if integration with certain incumbent systems (e.g., telephony, grievance platforms, law library) is required? |
| The awarded solution will replace all existing communication services, Telephone Services, Video Visitation, and e-messaging (Excluding tele-health). |
| 256 |
| SCHEDULE A, ATTACHMENT 2: PRISONER SERVICES BUSINESS SPECIFICATIONS WORKSHEET IA 1.0 3.0 & TS 1.0-7.0 |
| 24 & 27 |
| Please identify current incumbent vendors providing: (a) inmate phone services, (b) video visitation platforms, (c) grievance management systems, (d) law library services, and (e) any existing tablet/kiosk providers? |
| a) ViaPath |
b) ViaPath
c) Currently a manual process (handwritten/access database)
d) RELX (Lexis Nexis)
e) JPay
| 257 |
| SCHEDULE A, ATTACHMENT 2: PRISONER SERVICES BUSINESS SPECIFICATIONS WORKSHEET GEN 15 to 18 |
| 24 & 27 |
| Will current incumbent vendors be required to cooperate with transition activities, including providing system access, data exports, or interface documentation? |
| Yes, as much as required of them in their current contracts for transition and implementation to new services. |
| 258 |
| Sch A, Att 1: BUSINESS SPECIFICATIONS WORKSHEET NSM Sch A, Att 1: BUSINESS SPECIFICATIONS WORKSHEET SCHEDULE A, ATTACHMENT 2: PRISONER SERVICES BUSINESS SPECIFICATIONS WORKSHEET ] |
| All |
| Please provide a description of the current technology stack in place at each facility (including firewall, switch, Wi-Fi, routing, Internet Service Provider, and cabling infrastructure)? |
| Please see Route Path Diagram published with these answers. |
| 259 |
| Sch A, Att 1: BUSINESS SPECIFICATIONS WORKSHEET Requirements Network Security and Monitoring (NSM) |
| 4 & 5 |
| Is there a centralized State-managed network core that inmate-facing networks must backhaul into, or are vendor networks expected to operate independently behind SOM firewalls at each facility? |
| Vendor networks are expected to operate independently behind SOM managed firewalls at each facility. Please see response to question #229. |
| 260 |
| Sch A, Att 1: BUSINESS SPECIFICATIONS WORKSHEET NSM Sch A, Att 1: BUSINESS SPECIFICATIONS WORKSHEET SCHEDULE A, ATTACHMENT 2: PRISONER SERVICES BUSINESS SPECIFICATIONS WORKSHEET ] |
| All |
| Please confirm whether vendors must provide new cabling, switching, and Wi-Fi infrastructure at all facilities, or whether vendors are expected to reuse existing infrastructure where feasible? |
| Vendors will be required to use Wi-Fi as built out at every facility. Cabling, switching and firewalls may be needed depending on the proposed and accepted solutions. |
| 261 |
| Sch A, Att 1: BUSINESS SPECIFICATIONS WORKSHEET Facility Locations NSM 27-31.0 |
| 13 & 14 |
| Will SOM provide dedicated VLANs for inmate and staff segmentation at each site, or is the vendor responsible for provisioning full network segmentation? |
| The SOM will provide a dedicated SSID and VLAN for inmate traffic. Staff segmentation is handled by DTMB. |
| 262 |
| Sch A, Att 1: BUSINESS SPECIFICATIONS WORKSHEET NSM Sch A, Att 1: BUSINESS SPECIFICATIONS WORKSHEET SCHEDULE A, ATTACHMENT 2: PRISONER SERVICES BUSINESS SPECIFICATIONS WORKSHEET ] |
| All |
| Please confirm whether IPv6 support is mandatory for all network components and end-user devices? |
| It is not mandatory. At this time, The State is still an IPv4 environment. |
| 263 |
| Sch A, Att 1: BUSINESS SPECIFICATIONS WORKSHEET NSM Sch A, Att 1: BUSINESS SPECIFICATIONS WORKSHEET Requirements Network Security and Monitoring (NSM) |
| 4 & 5 |
| Are vendors required to provide physical on-site network security appliances (firewalls, web filters) in addition to leveraging SOM-managed firewalls? |
| The State can connect to vendor solutions from a SOM managed Firewall. The State can also connect to a SAAS/SASE solution and push traffic from inmates to this solution via the SOM managed firewall at each site. So, requirement depends on the proposed solution. |
| 264 |
| Sch A, Att 1: BUSINESS SPECIFICATIONS WORKSHEET NSM Sch A, Att 1: BUSINESS SPECIFICATIONS WORKSHEET SCHEDULE A, ATTACHMENT 2: PRISONER SERVICES BUSINESS SPECIFICATIONS WORKSHEET ] |
| All |
| For GRC integration, will vendors be granted direct access to the State's Lockpath Keylight platform for security documentation submission and status tracking? |
| No, the State does not allow Contractors to get direct access to the State’s Lockpath Keylight platform. Documentation submission is handled another way and will be explained to awarded Contractors during contract negotiations. |
| 265 |
| USINESS SPECIFICATIONS WORKSHEET SCHEDULE A, ATTACHMENT 2: PRISONER SERVICES BUSINESS SPECIFICATIONS WORKSHEET Ge n10 |
| 4 |
| Does the State require that inmate devices (e.g., tablets, kiosks) integrate with a specific Mobile Device Management (MDM) platform? If so, Please specify the MDM solution currently approved? |
| The State is open to entertaining proposed MDM solutions from vendors. |
| 266 |
| SCHEDULE A, ATTACHMENT 2: PRISONER SERVICES BUSINESS SPECIFICATIONS WORKSHEET EDRC 1-21.0 |
| 14-15 |
| Is there a preferred inmate telephony cost structure (e.g., per-minute charges, unlimited plans, or subsidized models)? |
| No, the State is open to options as presented in RFS responses. Bidders should include all applicable cost structures they support with context on why they would recommend or support any proposed model. Bidders should include consideration factors of each model proposed. |
| 267 |
| SCHEDULE A, ATTACHMENT 2: PRISONER SERVICES BUSINESS SPECIFICATIONS WORKSHEET REQUIREMENTS STORE SERVICES (SS) |
| 57 |
| Will inmate tablets be owned by the State, leased by inmates, or operated on a rental/subscription basis under vendor management? |
| Please see response to question #1. |
| 268 |
| SCHEDULE A, ATTACHMENT 2: PRISONER SERVICES BUSINESS SPECIFICATIONS WORKSHEET REQUIREMENTS STORE SERVICES (SS) |
| 57 |
| Please clarify the inmate-to-device ratio expected for tablets and kiosks (e.g., 1:1, 1:4, etc.)? |
| For devices, MDOC prefers a 1:1 with ability to scale up or down if needed. For kiosks, there is no expectation, Contractors should consider industry standards and best practices for meeting accessibility requirements. |
| 269 |
| SCHEDULE A, ATTACHMENT 2: PRISONER SERVICES BUSINESS SPECIFICATIONS WORKSHEET REQUIREMENTSREQUIREMENTS EDUCATIONAL SERVICES (ES) |
| 52 to 55 |
| For educational content, will the State require integration with existing programs or allow vendors to propose proprietary digital education platforms? |
| MDOC requires integration with the existing programs (CETN, Google Classroom, Paradigm, etc.), but would also allow vendors to propose additional proprietary digital education content or platforms if they support access to our existing content. |
| 270 |
| SCHEDULE A, ATTACHMENT 2: PRISONER SERVICES BUSINESS SPECIFICATIONS WORKSHEET REQUIREMENTS PRISONER VIDEO VISITATION (VV) |
| 35-41 |
| Are video visitation platforms expected to integrate with external stakeholders (e.g., attorneys, family members) via secure web portals, or is the service intended for on-site use only? |
| Yes, the State is looking for a video visitation platform that is for external calls to friends and family via secure web portals. |
| 271 |
| SCHEDULE A, ATTACHMENT 2: PRISONER SERVICES BUSINESS SPECIFICATIONS WORKSHEET REQUIREMENTS\ |
| Will the State allow revenue-sharing models for inmate communications (phone, messaging, visitation) or require strict fixed-fee pricing to the State? |
| The State would consider both revenue sharing models or strict fixed-fee pricing for inmate communications as appliable by FCC requirements. The State’s priority is to keep these communication services affordable for prisoner friends and family. Bidders should include consideration factors of each model proposed. |
| 272 |
| SCHEDULE A, ATTACHMENT 2: PRISONER SERVICES BUSINESS SPECIFICATIONS WORKSHEET REQUIREMENTS\ |
| If revenue-sharing is allowed, are there statutory or administrative caps on commission percentages payable to the State? |
| Any revenue-sharing models must meet all FCC requirements. Contractors must research and understand statutory limits on commissions and other payment models to ensure they are in compliance at all times. |
| 273 |
| MDOC Inmate Services RFS |
| 7 |
| Will pricing be evaluated based on lowest total cost to the State, lowest total cost to inmates, or another specific value formula? |
| See answer to question #135. |
| Please provide required service levels (SLAs) for incident response, network uptime, helpdesk response, and issue resolution for both inmate and staff-facing services? |
| See Schedule D, Service Level Agreement. |
| Are vendors expected to staff on-site resources at correctional facilities for network/hardware maintenance, or will remote support be acceptable with on-call dispatch as needed? |
| Remote support with on-call dispatch is acceptable when using MDOC approved resources. |
| Will vendors be required to offer multilingual helpdesk support (e.g., English and Spanish)? |
| These offerings may be considered as part of the State’s overall best value analysis. Please provide in your proposed solution what types of helpdesk solution you can offer including options for foreign language accessibility. |
| Is a phased deployment approach preferred, and if so, Please provide preliminary facility grouping for phased rollout scheduling? |
| This is dependent on the system/solution you are bidding on as well as the timeline for the new prisoner network and wi-fi installation. For prisoner services like ITS, VV, and email/e-messaging the State prefers a Flash Cutover transition to the new system that prevents any solution downtime. Please indicate if this transition process is practical. If not, what barriers exist that would prevent this type of transition process and a recommendation of an appropriate transition process. Please provide specifics in your bid response. |
| Please outline the expected length of the Transition-Out period at contract expiration or termination? |
| The state standard is typically 90 days but this may be negotiated during contract development. |
| 279 |
| SCHEDULE A, ATTACHMENT 2: PRISONER SERVICES BUSINESS SPECIFICATIONS WORKSHEET REQUIREMENTS VV 27.0 |
| 36 & 37 |
| Will vendors be required to integrate with existing MDOC administrative systems (e.g., inmate management systems, grievance tracking, payment/commissary systems)? |
| Yes, please reference Schedule A Section 11-Integration. |
| 280 |
| SCHEDULE A, ATTACHMENT 2: PRISONER SERVICES BUSINESS SPECIFICATIONS WORKSHEET REQUIREMENTS VV 27.0 |
| 36 & 37 |
| Please specify which systems (if any) require direct API integration versus batch import/export? |
| Please see response to question #246. |
| 281 |
| SCHEDULE A, ATTACHMENT 2: PRISONER SERVICES BUSINESS SPECIFICATIONS WORKSHEET REQUIREMENTS VV 27.0 |
| 36 &37 |
| Are there any specific restrictions or security guidelines vendors must follow for third-party API usage and integration within the MDOC environment? |
| Yes, The State requires FIPS 140-3 and TLS 1.2 or greater. The State requires OIDC 2.0. NIST 800-53 Rev. 5 or greater risk assessment and CJIS where applicable. |
| Will the vendor be responsible for delivering initial and ongoing training to MDOC staff on the use of administrative portals, reporting tools, and inmate monitoring platforms? Is there a current LMS in place? |
| Yes, Contractor is responsible for providing initial and ongoing training to MDOC staff on use of admin portals reporting tools, and monitoring system. The State’s current LMS is provided by Cornerstone on Demand. |
| Will vendors be required to participate in PREA and CFA security awareness training alongside State employees? |
| Yes Contractor and sub-contractor staff are expected to complete CFA security and PREA training before entering a facility and annually thereafter. This training is mostly completed online through MiTRAIN, but training may or may not be alongside state employees at the facility level if needed. |
| 284 |
| SCHEDULE A, ATTACHMENT 2: PRISONER SERVICES BUSINESS SPECIFICATIONS WORKSHEET REQUIREMENTS GEN 4.0 |
| 4 |
| What is the expected frequency and scope of system audits and penetration tests for the deployed inmate services environment? |
| Yearly and after any significant change as determined by the MiSAP process. |
| Will vendors be expected to participate in annual PREA compliance audits, and what level of system data disclosure is required during those audits? |
| Yes, contractors are expected to participate in annual PREA compliance audits. Contractors themselves are not under the scrutiny of the actual Audit. The State or auditing entity may request data on phone calls, video visits, kites, or other communications. Data disclosure will be determined based on feasibility and need. |
| Is there a mandatory security or technical standard (other than the provided DTMB and PREA standards) that vendors must certify compliance with before implementation? |
| Yes, the State has published standards on Michigan.gov. There are additional standards that are not available to the public that the State can provide upon bidder signing a non-disclosure agreement. |
| Is there a preferred or required cloud hosting environment (e.g., AWS GovCloud, Microsoft Azure Government, State-owned infrastructure) for any backend components? |
| The State does not have a preferred or required cloud hosting environment. |
| If proposed solutions include any AI-based or automated analytics tools (e.g., video monitoring, messaging monitoring), are there any special disclosure or approval requirements before deployment? |
| The State has an AI core team that will need to evaluate any AI proposed solutions. Data that is classified confidential or restricted is not allowed to interact with AI solutions. |
| 289 |
| MDOC Inmate Services RFS |
| 8 |
| Will there be a formal oral presentation or demonstration stage for shortlisted vendors, and if so, what functional areas will presentations be expected to cover? |
| Per RFS Proposal Instructions: “The State may, but is not required to, conduct an on-site visit to tour and inspect the Bidder's facilities, require an oral presentation of the Bidder's proposal, attend a proof of concept meeting, conduct interviews with Bidders, or request additional price concessions at any point during the evaluation process.” |